Reconciling faith and science

Bartikus,

Since I, and many others feel that notwithstanding its local palliative or therapeutic nature, theism is in essence pernicious at the macro level, I must reject your thesis.

To return to the topic about reconciliation of faith and science, I suggest this is unlikely since the rationality of "knowing the Truth" precludes or discourages certain research directions especially in the life sciences. A secondary issue is the essential anthropocentricity of monotheism which illogically promotes homo sapiens to "special case" status. We might note here that irrespective of Darwin or genetic evidence, our behaviour is little different from typical tribal primates with the exception that our more primative relations seem to unhampered by belief systems with which to rationalise and exacerbate their instincts of caring or strife.

Maybe your right. Maybe a belief in God is dangerous for mankind. Maybe we are not special at all. My discussion with you does make it easier for me to believe this is so. You do sympathize with the loss of others? Why is this? Tell me in any way you know how. lol .....come in Spock!

Do you really "feel" it is illogical to be anthropocentric?

an·thro·po·cen·tric (nthr-p-sntrk)
adj.
Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience

Monkeys don't believe in God? Monkeys don't have belief systems? How do you know this? There are little differences in behavior between man and monkey? lol

In what terms do you interpret these realities?

Bartikus,

The standard non-anthropocentric answer to your question is outlined below.

Humans seem to differ by their usage of language as an action co-ordinator. Internalization of such co-ordination is what might be called "thought" which gives the capacity to moderate what would have been immediate instinctual action, (One definition of intelligence is "the capacity to delay a response").
This abstraction process can account for concepts of "time" and "empathy" a combination of which constitutes a conception of ones own mortality. "Religion" is culturally acquired to ameliorate the fear of mortality and to reify ad hoc cultural control of sexual instincts. In addition, there may be an "altruism gene" which has species survival aspects, but which is subordinate to tribalism instincts in the case of competition. Religion then acts to reify tribalism with priests sanctioning each side of the conflict in the name of the establishment of its superior "reality", or the "de-humanization/satanic possession" of the other side.

The historical and scientific evidence points to one simple conclusion. Religion is an opiate and a hallucinogen with limited benefits in small doses. Those who would question the status of this evidence need to consider the potential repercussions of its rejection for a species which has developed the capacity for global destruction.

This link gives information as to why I believe it is completely logical to think that mankind in fact does carry a "special status" as compared to all other mammals on earth.

We are not carrying this status as a badge of glory, but quite the opposite. Man seems to carry a nature within them that no other animals on earth do. This nature any intelligent person would refer to as evil.

You may see the "creation" of a monotheistic religion as being brought about for a need to make one feel better about their mortality and keep their sexual practices in check. Though my beliefs may in fact be therapeutic to me in times of need, it is an oversimplification to insinuate that these are the main purposes or focus of my beliefs! Your assertions regarding this reveal more about you....than me or my religion. What are the most important issues to you...I wonder... or do you seek to put a stumbling block in my path by defining my purpose for me? the collective?

"One definition of intelligence is "the capacity to delay a response"



Indeed!

Did you fail to delay your response long enough or did it arrive right on time?

I would gladly allow you to define the purposes and focus of the schools of thought you adhere to (sciences) if you would be respectful enough to allow me the same courtesy! Otherwise these discussions will remain "fruitless" because of the very nature I speak of and is in fact the primary reason for and focus of my beliefs!

You have passed judgement on all religions and grouped them together as one? Do you assume that a worldwide war is now only possible with religion?

"Contend not with flesh and blood" saith the Lord
Christians have no carnal warfare...it's a spiritual one with far worse consequences.

Without the love of God within us...we are already dead. I'm sure you believe you would be out of peril without religion on the earth. That thought process alone could be dangerous as well.

Mankind would not be a danger to itself without religion? God is no respecter of persons...He loves the unbeliever and the believer. No one is superior to another.

Is your beliefs or knowledge superior to mine? Are you not displaying a tendency towards tribalism as well? Do you want to kill me now? Am I the bad guy or is mankind bad in general and needs to learn to care for one another for the sake of the species?

Here is the afformentioned link.

http://www.onelife.com/ethics/kill.html

Bartikus,

I have read your link and there many points of contention I might raise over its prescriptive conclusions. Suffice to say the author's description of himself " Student of social behavior (culture) based on real and provable knowledge" is indicative of an intellectual no-go area ! You seem to be taking this personally but I find it difficult to respond at such a level because the argument I outlined above would go on to suggest that concepts of "self" are also a product and a reflection of social reality.

Of course it would be simplistic to argue that "only" religion might precipitate global destruction. However to ignore its infamous role hitherto as a precipitating or predisposing factor would be to stick our intellectual heads in the sand.

There is no such thing as "superior knowledge" except in the solution of specific problems. All "knowledge" is geared to practicalities and consensus. Humans do not need to "learn" to care for each other. They need to appreciate that they are part of the total web of life. Contrary to your reference, there is no moral position implied by this, and with respect to the "zero probability argument for life" this is simply fallacious. Following Prigogines work there is evidence to support the view that this web is a spontaneous occurence and implies no divine origin (i.e. life is defined as autopoietic) but that certain strands can "catastrophically cease" (using the terminology of systems theory as applied to autpoiesis). Intelligence was not "created by life" ...intelligence IS (a form of) life. (The Santiago Theory of Cognition).

Once again, this thread is about "faith" and "science". You are therefore correct in suggesting our discussion would be fruitless if we did not keep this to the fore. However the very definition of "faith" implies a transcendence of "evidence". That is not to say that a scientific paradigm does not itself have a temporary bias on what constitutes "evidence", but that that bias will shift according zeittgeisst and applicability of results. This is not so with a religious paradigm which tries to apply petrified rationalities from pre-scientific eras on the basis of an ad hoc claim to "eternal truth".

"Suffice to say the author's description of himself " Student of social behavior (culture) based on real and provable knowledge" is indicative of an intellectual no-go area ! "

Do you believe the concerns and information you gave concerning Tribalisms effects and religion to be based on real or provable knowledge?
I have no mortal enemies fresco, and I never will. My enemies cannot be destroyed by physical means.

It could be argued that a mass destruction of humans might be beneficial to not only mankind in the long run but, the planet as well.
Death knocks at all our doors..always has...why fear it? Do you realize all the infinite variables that could potentially lead to the end of the world for us? Do you worry about all these things as well...or just religion?

Mankinds intellect alone is not enough to ensure mankind's survival forever! Is it? Do you believe it is?
Your conclusions if taken as truth could compel mankind to force religion out of this world, by physical means if neccessary, and thereby triggering the end for us all as well!Tribalism in action.

Are you a contributor to death or life. Are you sure? Maybe we should'nt stick our heads in the sand regarding the possibility you propose but, there are infinite possiblities and probabilities that come into play regarding the survival of man!

Is your intellect prepared to "weigh them out"? If yes i say what great faith you have!
Do you seek to remedy the possibilities and probablities of mankind's end? Could seeking the remedy or applying it bring about the end?

Whether our head is in the sand or not...darkness remains.

Do you think my religion is a crutch? I assure you it feels more like a cross on my back than it ever feels like a crutch.

Are you willing to surrender your life and lives of your loved ones for the benefit of the One tribe answer for mankind's survival? Or would you be deciding who and what is to be sacrificed on earth?

My enemy is not physical...but is near. With "peace" he shall destroy many!

"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is exposed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

My enemies will not be destroyed by the hands of men... but their destruction will come.

Are your assertions indicitive of an intellectual no-go area as well? Maybe he is just refusing to "stick his head in the sand" just as you are?

Bartikus,

My main interest is epistemology, not morality or the survival of mankind. From that point of view concepts of "proof" "causality" and "reality" are up for stringent analysis, yet also from the epistemological position "faith" simply simply bears no comparison with "science" because it fails the minimal test which "science" must pass...namely "falsifiability in principle".

As secondary interests I might think of "morality" in terms of expediency, and "survival of mankind" as something of a lottery. However, I cannot look at either of these secondary issues without seeing "faith" as an irrelevance, or a negative influence.

At the outset of this discussion with you I had the impression that you might be arguing from the transcendent position of "spirituality" rather than "faith". Had that been the case a non-confrontational convergence is theoretically possible provided that "an anthropomorhic deity" is avoided.
However that was not the case as shown by your resort to the "word magic" of the gospels and your unusal concern with "motivations" rather than "arguments". I see little point in continuing at such a level.

Whatever our differences may be, we can agree that no one is without some unique qualities and makes us each...somewhat rare. It was'nt a total waste for me. I did learn some things and can still find a silver lining in our discussions.

Thanks for your time and patience.

I wish you well.

Fresco,

I'd like to buy you a beer.

Dave.

Cheers Dave !

fresco wrote-



That makes a great deal of sense.

Fresco wrote:

A secondary issue is the essential anthropocentricity of monotheism which illogically promotes homo sapiens to "special case" status.

Does this mean that you do not necessarily consider mankind to be above all other animals and plants on earth?

Bartikus,

Precisely. The fact that we are presently the most advanced in terms of controlling our environment is only one form of measurement. In terms of an evolutionary time scale, compared to insects we arrived "yesterday" and could be gone "tomorrow". Dinosaurs lasted about 200 times (I think) longer than the current history of homo sapiens and they didn't make it.

Fresco wrote:

A secondary issue is the essential anthropocentricity of monotheism which illogically promotes homo sapiens to "special case" status.



I believe that most monotheistic religions believe that God granted mankind dominion over the earth including the fowl of the air, sea, land as well as all plant life. Add the fact that man is able to control it's enviroment like no other and I think it is entirely logical to give man a "special case" status. No?

No, considering the rest of the earth could get along perfectly fine if we were to disappear tomorrow. Let blue-green algae disappear, and everything else would die, including us. The little stuff is much more important to life than we are. We pretty much just muck things up.

Sorry no....and we invented logic !

Does man have a say or impact good/or bad over whether blue green algae survives?

Ok. why not? You said it's illogical to consider mankind a "special case" life form.

Why not? Because he has not existed as long as Dinosaurs or insects? That is only one measure you said. Why choose one measure and throw out the other? That's seems highly illogical. That is what you want to support your claim? Now that is logical!

Does man have dominion over all plants and animals? Do you deny we do?

Let's ponder all the measures and see where logic takes us. No?

I guess you want to keep only the measures that make mankind seem unspecial....and toss out the measures that make them "special cases"!

Is'nt that correct? hmm

If anyone other than an alleged god supposedly granted mankind dominion over the earth, it would be widely regarded as a bonehead move. We have done an extraordinarily bad job of whatever dominion we have, from habitat destruction to global warming to toxic waste dumps to environmental poisoning to catastrophic collapse of fishing stocks to ozone holes to extinctions, we've basically fouled our own nest. Even birds don't **** where they live. We do.

And no other animal could have had a greater impact...Good or bad!

No other animal could make it better..... like man as well.

By that measure....we are special. To have dominion is to have power over the world we inhabit .....good or bad. We decide. It took many, many ,many bonehead moves of man and still does today to get where we are.

We will decide to use wisdom or folly from this day forward and reap it's just rewards. No?